October 29, 2006

LA Times: It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's...SuperKarl!

I don't hold any illusions about the role of the media in enabling those Republicans in power. I also see Karl Rove is a smart guy and is not to be underestimated. There are reasons to see him as a huge force for the GOP. What I don't need to see is a "respected" national newspaper like LA Times turn into a weak-kneed fangirl/fanboy. Nor do I care about seeing them fail to mention the history of their reporters (in this case, Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten).

The title says it all:

"GOP at a loss? Karl Rove has an 11th-hour plan to win"

Now let's wade through some of the rest:

But the most significant element of Rove's effort to help four-term Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds keep his job may have occurred behind closed doors, when the White House strategist met with a federal disaster relief official contemplating how to respond to the storm. Four days later, Reynolds announced that President Bush would authorize millions of dollars in federal disaster aid for the area.

The timing was perfect: Reynolds broke the news hours after testifying before the House Ethics Committee about his role in the Mark Foley sex scandal — knocking reports on the scandal out of the spotlight.

Reynolds' fate Nov. 7 could be a bellwether for Republicans in the Northeast — in the midterm election as well as the long term. And his poll numbers crashed after revelations that he had known about suspicious e-mails the former Florida congressman had sent to male congressional pages. In the wake of the announcement about federal aid, a survey by a Buffalo television station showed Reynolds regaining a narrow lead over Democrat Jack Davis.

The article fails to mention that Davis is a bit....eccentric. There's also a natural evening out of poll numbers that would occur as the Foley scandal slips out of the public memory. But let's be fair to Karl - this could have helped Reynolds regain momentum.

Unfortunately, the article continues, with examples that become more and more meaningless:

In Missouri, Sen. Jim Talent is struggling to retain a seat that is considered vital to maintaining the GOP's Senate majority.

Talent, whose mother died of breast cancer, has made support for fighting the disease an element in his campaign. Recently, Rove's deputies arranged for First Lady Laura Bush to appear with Talent to promote Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Once a year, the National Park Service bathes the soaring Gateway Arch that dominates downtown St. Louis in pink light — the signature color of the breast cancer awareness campaign. This year, the pink lighting coincided with Laura Bush's visit. The White House says it encouraged the action.

So Jim Talent has had a boost because Laura Bush showed up to see pink lighting? OK. This seems like basic politics to me. Not a sign of genius.

On Tuesday, Rove used the White House itself to fire up the base, setting up a tent on the lawn for Cabinet secretaries and other officials to deliver the GOP's hard-edged message on the dangers of a Democratic triumph to 42 generally sympathetic radio talk show hosts who could pass the message on to millions of conservative listeners.

Rove gave interviews to 12 of the radio commentators.

The rock star spoke to the interviewers personally! Again, this is a good strategy, but nothing earthshattering, nor a recipe for sure success. Didn't the White House set up all kinds of interviews with "generally sympathetic radio talk show hosts" during the Harriet Miers fiasco?

No one will deny Karl Rove has a major impact on modern American politics, or that he has ratcheted up some big victories in the past 6 years. However, as the piece trailed off I began to wonder how much the authors of this story cared about the real pulse of the elections and how much they cared about trying to revive the "Karl Rove Saves the Universe" meme which had lost some steam over the past few years.

Mr. Hamburger and Mr. Wallsten have no qualms in hyping Mr. Rove, obviously. Per Hotline:

This piece does not mention that the authors of this piece also have a book titled "One Party Country The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century."

IN 2004, Republicans won a clean sweep of the national elections — 232 House seats, 55 Senate seats, 28 governorships and, of course, the presidency, expanding on gains from 2000 and 2002. It's the kind of electoral dominance that could lead a pair of White House reporters to wonder: "[I]s the United States becoming a one-party country?"

Such is the provocative contention of Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten's behind-the-curtains exegesis of the Republican plan for perpetual political power — and why it just might be crazy enough to work. "Republicans," they write, "are the New York Yankees of American politics — the team that, at the start of every season, has the tools in place to win it all."

Is this what the media is reduced to? The LA Times running this journalistic pom pom wave for SuperKarl?

If the GOP holds off Democrats next week, fine. A win is a win. However, if Rove were as masterful as this article claims, then the GOP would not be in these dire straits in the first place. The GOP screwed up the past two years. They failed. Again and again and again. They should not be in a position where "only" losing a dozen House seats and 3-4 Senate seats is "victory".

Don't let the media turn this election into yet another smashing success for SuperKarl. This midterm is a loss for them no matter what happens on November 7.

Who wrote this post? It's good. Always good to see a take-down of the "Rove is invincible" narrative, and better to see a good one.

It's occurring to me, and this could be way off, that one reason for the dulling of the gleam on that narrative is that it took people a while to figure out that yes, he really would go that low. Now he's lost the element of surprise there, and it's being revealed that what he's got left is all pretty ordinary.

(And, of course, another reason is that effective campaigning can only cover up for so much disastrous governance.)

no matter what happens a week from tomorrow, karl rove's place in history is guaranteed as the orchestra leader for the most evil, polarizing, vicious, ugly, manipulative, and scurrilous campaign tactics yet seen in the united states... certainly, karl had notable predecessors, but it was karl who re-fashioned the template into something utterly despicable... karl rove is a very dark force indeed...

If memory serves me correctly, there was a recent flap at the LA Times involving a change in ownership - followed by the resignation of the long time senior editor of the paper. I heard about it on an NPR program. I remember thinking "there goes the corporate machine buying one of the few papers with a dissenting voice" - and here's our result.

The main thing that worried me about this article was this --\

"This week, Rove and his staff will turn to their endgame.

They will oversee a mobilization of political employees from Cabinet agencies, Capitol Hill and lobbying firms — many of them skilled campaign veterans — to more than a dozen battleground states. Many will act as "marshals," supervising the "72-hour plan" developed by Rove in 2001 with Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director who now heads the Republican National Committee."

Man, I hate the sound of that. I just can't help but wonder what all those 'operatives' are going out there to do that isn't meant to see the light of day.

I don't trust 'em. The dems need to have 10 lawyers and investigators documenting every move those bastards make.

But I digress. A good week to all. I voted already and my machine seemed to work fine. High hopes.

I am battling the blogospheric whorlwind on this one, but I've got a very different take on that piece. Seems to me the entire point of the piece is to raise the question of the propriety - to say nothing of, in some cases, the legality - of putting the resources of the federal government to use for political gain. If your conduct is inappropriate and possibly illegal, does that make being a maestro of such conduct less bad or worse?

And given that this is a news piece for a major daily, would it be better to present the facts, like this, or do it the other way, which would be to say, "Some have raised questions about the third prong," and then go on to quote Chuck Schumer raising questions about the conduct, making it sound like yet another partisan he said-he said where most readers may well throw up their hands and call down a plague on both their houses.

And note that the article raises questions much more effectively by showing quite clearly that it is no coincidence what happened in Reynolds district and then - instead of having a Democrat say it was no coincidence - having the White House say, absurdly, that it was a coincidence.

I'm always amazed that Karl Rove is considered a "genius". It's not genius that separates him from other political operatives, it's his complete lack of ethics and his willingness to go beyond the boundaries of even the most aggressive players. It's not that he shows an unusual creativity, it's rather the sheer ruthlessness of his tactics that make him stand out. It's shameful that he's so lionized for it, and it reveals the sad state of our society's consciousness. Our democracy is all the worse for his contributions.